Google Meet does have some key features missing on Firefox such as blurring / changing video background.
Firefox does some things better (like PiP video playback on most websites, like YouTube!) but others are so poorly done (like Profiles) compared to Chrome that it overall makes Chrome my first choice browser.
It's just the latest Firefox release, recompiled without all the Mozilla telemetry, and with all the settings flipped to more secure/private defaults so all the tracking features are opt-in instead of opt-out.
Which sort of underscores the monopoly point. There’s no universal free/cheap alternative to Meet, further entrenching Chromium.
Firefox is actually a pretty good example of good branding. It’s short, rolls off the tongue, has pleasant alliteration, and evokes mental imagery.
A chrome browser on the same device has maps behave almost instantaneously.
It's free and open source, works everywhere, has stuff like background replacement, and doesn't require signup at all.
The only choice is to boycott your favorite artist because their record label made a deal with the wrong company. That's too many layers of indirection, for many fans.
I mostly use maps via an app (Apple or Google, they seem to be the same for basic use). Usually if I’m using a map, I’ll be using it in my car for navigation, so Firefox doesn’t even come to mind.
I suspect, on top of the “maybe it is internal apps” thing I mentioned at first, some of the really bad sites are the really interactive ones, I probably just use the app without even thinking of it.
So its a regular drag for me. If I really need to move quick to find something, I'll begrudgingly open chrome.
He provides a nice piece of anecdata there: for one-on-one meetings, you can just send people a link and usually they just join. Even if they've sent a link to Zoom or Meet or whatever, you still can say “hey, join this instead” and it will work. I haven't tried this yet, but sounds plausible to me.